Ok, somebody go for it! (Also please refer to my pronouncement in the bug -- I've gotta run.)
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> > wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Ned Batchelder <n...@nedbatchelder.com> > wrote: > >> If the bug report is accurate, CPython and the reference manual have > >> disagreed since Python 2.5, and many of us are now surprised to hear it, > >> which means there can't have been much broken code. > > > > Give that it was discussed before and fixed before, I think the intent > > is clear: we should fix the code, not the docs. > > Almost certainly, it was broken in the migration to the AST compiler > and there was no regression test to pick up the change. > > > I haven't looked at the proposed fixes, but I think correctness is > > more important than saving an extra bytecode (OTOH keeping the set of > > opcodes the same trumps both). I can't imagine that this extra opcode > > will be significant in many cases. > > Since you've indicated the implementation is in the wrong here and you > also want to preserve opcode semantics, I think Skip's patch is > correct, but also needs to be applied to dict comprehensions (now we > have them). The extra bytecode is only ROT_TWO, which is one of the > cheapest we have kicking around :) > > Cheers, > Nick. > > -- > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
